Dismissed

Bhola Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC30 May 2022A482/13111/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a bail application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by Bhola Nath Pandey, challenging a lower court order that registered his Section 156(3) application as a complaint case instead of directing an inquiry. The Court held that the allegations were vague and unsupported by an injury report, exercising judicial discretion to reject the challenge.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed; the impugned order was left in force.

Bhola Nath Pandey Vs State of U.P… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13111 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Bhola Nath Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed against the order dated 16.03.2022, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.6, Allahabad in Misc. Case No. 16 of 2022 (Bhola Nath Pandey vs. Bhaskar Verma and others), under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., P.S. Naini, District Prayagraj, whereby the application filed by the applicant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has has been registered as a complaint case.

¶7

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.PC. against the opposite party nos. 2 to 6 making allegations that the said opposite parties have assaulted the applicant and also snatched Rs. 500/- from him. It was stated that the allegations made in application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. make out a cognizable offence, hence the court below must have directed the police to investigate the matter but instead of doing the same, the Court below has registered the application of applicant as a complaint case. In this matter question of recovery of alleged amount was also involved. Learned counsel submitted that in view of above stated facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is against law and thus, liable to be set aside.

¶8

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

¶9

I have considered rival submissions and perused the record.

¶10

6. Law regarding jurisdiction under Section 156(3) is well settled. In case of

¶11

Sukhwasi V State of UP 2007 (59) ACC 739, after considering the full Bench decision of the Court in the case of Ram Babu Gupta & others vs. State of U.P. 2001 (43) ACC 50 and many other cases, the Division Bench of this court has held that it is not incumbent upon a Magistrate to allow an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C and there is no such legal mandate. He may or may not allow the application in his discretion. If the allegations made in the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. prima-facie appear to be without any substance, then in such case the Magistrate can refuse to direct registration of the FIR and its investigation by the police, even if the application contains the allegations of commission of a cognizable offence. In such case, the Magistrate is fully competent to reject the application.

¶12

7. In case Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava and another vs. State of U.P. and others ;2015 AIR(SC)1758, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

¶13

"At this stage it is seemly to state that power under Section 156(3) warrants application of judicial mind. A court of law is involved. It is not the police taking steps at the stage of Section 154 of the code. A litigant at his own whim cannot invoke the authority of the Magistrate. A principled and really grieved citizen with clean hands must have free access to invoke the said power. It protects the citizens but when pervert litigations takes this route to harass their fellows citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle and curb the same."

¶14

Thus, it is apparent that that while dealing with application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., Magistrate is required to apply its mind to find out whether the first information sought to be lodged by the applicant had any substance or not. Magistrate is not bound to pass an order of investigation as a matter of course but the discretion has to be exercised judicially. Even in the cases, where prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed from the averments made in the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. in appropriate case according to facts and nature of the offences alleged to have been committed, the Magistrate can decline to direct investigation and in such cases the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. can be registered as a complaint as held by the Division Bench in the case of Sukhwasi vs. State of U.P. (supra).

¶15

Keeping above stated position of law in view, in the instant case it may be seen that the allegation made by applicant is that the opposite party nos. 2 and 3

¶16

have abused him and thereafter the opposite party no.2 to 6 have assaulted him with lathi and they have also snatched Rs. 500/- from him. As stated above, there is no injury report of the applicant to show that he has sustained any injury. Further, only general allegations have been levelled against all the alleged private parties. It also appears from record that both the parties are neighbours and that only a vague allegation has been made that the opposite parties have snatched Rs. 500 from the applicant. In view of these facts, it cannot be said that the court below has committed any error by not directing the police to investigate the matter. Further, the application of applicant has been registered as a complaint case and he may pursue the same. No material illegality or perversity in the impugned order could not shown. Considering the nature of allegations and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that instant application has no force and thus, liable to be dismissed.

¶17

In view of aforesaid, the application under section 482 Cr.P.C is hereby dismissed.

¶18

Order Date :- 30.5.2022 A. Tripathi

¶19

Digitally signed by AKHILESH TRIPATHI Date: 2022.06.01 10:45:47 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bhola Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhola Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhananjay Saroj and 7 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Parvej Ahmad and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Malati Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abdul Kabeer Khan @ Abdul Kadeer Khan Vs State of U.P. thr. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. of U.P. and Anr.

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Ambuj Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P and Another